Merged School Secretary Persecuted For Making Porn

[WildCat]

Did I say the porn stars should teach by example? No. I do think they're better placed to talk about sex (which is generally not 'clinical', thank dog) than most biology teachers (or at least the one charged with that task at my school...)

A quick Google search shows she wasn't engaging in safe sex in her pornos, hardly the example kids should be learning about.

 

[fuelair]

A quick Hub search verifies that.

 

[Belz...]

"I'm giv'n her all she's got, Captain. She canna hold out much longer! I'm gonna hafta eject the hardcore!" And after the sexynova there's nothing but a black hole.

Black ?

 

[Limbero]

I love porn as much as the next guy, maybe more, and if it were my school, I'd recommend that the employees not make adult movies that are made public. Also, the fact that she had unprotected sex in the porn makes her a pretty poor role model for young teenagers. If she wasn't warned beforehand though, I don't agree with the decision to fire her.

Everyone knows it may not be the greatest thing for your name to have appeared in porn, but it shouldn't be a legitimate reason to fire someone unless it's stated in the contract. People should be allowed to do what they want to in their spare time, assuming it's legal and not against any rules they have agreed to, at work or otherwise.

 

[JJM 777]

So everyone is good with the thought that a 14 year old student recognised her

Yes, including every 14-ager that you will interview on this subject. No make it 13. If there is anything unclear in it, studying some human biology might shed light on the issue.

 

[Corsair 115]

2. Do you think a majority of Canadians accept porn as mainstream?

I think that would depend entirely on how porn is being defined.

 

[Travis]

I love porn as much as the next guy, maybe more, and if it were my school, I'd recommend that the employees not make adult movies that are made public. Also, the fact that she had unprotected sex in the porn makes her a pretty poor role model for young teenagers. If she wasn't warned beforehand though, I don't agree with the decision to fire her.

Everyone knows it may not be the greatest thing for your name to have appeared in porn, but it shouldn't be a legitimate reason to fire someone unless it's stated in the contract. People should be allowed to do what they want to in their spare time, assuming it's legal and not against any rules they have agreed to, at work or otherwise.

How so? In porn everyone gets tested regularly. Seems like that would be a good lesson to share.

For the record I've always been outraged by businesses (or schools) regulating what their employees do on their own time. Bunch of vile fascists if you ask me.

 

[jiggeryqua]

Your reaction reveals quite obviously that I have touched a nerve. I apologize if I offended you, but keep in mind that this is a public message board.

You have not 'touched a nerve', nor am I 'offended', but your insistence that that you can divine my state of mind is amusing. Your stance 'reveals quite obviously' that, when picked up on lazy assumptions and self-serving assertions, your preferred tactic is to go straight to attacking me rather than conceding that 'common sense' doesn't cut it. I am, by the way, well aware that this is a public message board, and it demeans you to stoop to suggesting I am not aware of that. Are you aware it's the JREF forum and people will pick you up on unsupported assertions, assumptions and fallacious reasoning?

 

[GzuzKryzt]

You have not 'touched a nerve', nor am I 'offended', but your insistence that that you can divine my state of mind is amusing. Your stance 'reveals quite obviously' that, when picked up on lazy assumptions and self-serving assertions, your preferred tactic is to go straight to attacking me rather than conceding that 'common sense' doesn't cut it. I am, by the way, well aware that this is a public message board, and it demeans you to stoop to suggesting I am not aware of that. Are you aware it's the JREF forum and people will pick you up on unsupported assertions, assumptions and fallacious reasoning?

Well, it seems I have to agree to disagree.

 

[WildCat]

I think that would depend entirely on how porn is being defined.

Have you googled her work?

 

[jiggeryqua]

Well, it seems I have to agree to disagree.

With which bit? You can divine my state of mind? Your snide attack on me does constitute a reasonable response to an argument? 'Common sense' is sufficient justification for assumptions and assertions?

 

[WildCat]

How so? In porn everyone gets tested regularly. Seems like that would be a good lesson to share.

Uh, yeah... AIDS outbreak in porn in 2009:

US health officials are investigating California's multi-billion-dollar porn industry after it emerged that there have been 16 unpublicised cases of HIV among adult film actors since a 2004 outbreak made headlines.

...In fact, 22 performers have tested positive, including last week's case and five in 2004, according to the numbers released by the Los Angeles county Department of Public Health.

And again in 2010:

A porn actor's positive HIV test has prompted an increasing number of America's largest adult film companies to halt production while an industry clinic locates and tests the performer's on-screen sex partners.

The revelation this week further highlighted the lack of condom use among actors routinely exposed in the course of a day's work to bodily fluids capable of spreading myriad sexually transmitted diseases.

Testing doesn't prevent STDs.

 

[Rasmus]

I think that would depend entirely on how porn is being defined.

It would also depend on how you define "accept".

http://www.safefamilies.org/sfStats.php
More than 70% of men from 18 to 34 visit a pornographic site in a typical month (comScore Media Metrix).

I would not expect the Canadian numbers to be drastically different - and I would think this means porn is pretty much "accepted".

 

[23_Tauri]

A pharmacy technician , or pharmacist could be let go for getting a bit too rowdy at a party. It isn't an issue of " Porn is bad" but of someone not keeping up their end of the professionalism bargain. One of the best pieces of advice i have received from my instructors in regards to professionalism is " Someone will always know your name." and this is a perfect example of that. Being professional doesn't stop when you leave work. And when you work with kids, being in a video that is going to get the principal known as " The guy with the porn star secretary." is not only impacting your reputation, but that of the principal.

On the contrary, there's nothing in the article to suggest that she isn't a shining light of professionalism when carrying out her duties as a porn star.

But really, employers dictating to their employees what they do when they are not at work is beyond the pale in my book. Personally, the school could have left her in her position (no pun intended) and she would have suffered enough from the flak she got from the pupils each day at school.

When you're at work, you do your job and abide by your contract with your employer. When you're not at work you're a free agent and your responsibility is to the law of the land, not your employer.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Did I say the porn stars should teach by example? No. I do think they're better placed to talk about sex (which is generally not 'clinical', thank dog) than most biology teachers (or at least the one charged with that task at my school...)

Evidence?

There is also a difference between criminal behaviour and stuff you think people shouldn't do because you're a bit uncomfortable with it. I'm not overly keen on too much legislation over personal behaviour with no victims, but I'm aggressively opposed to moral bullying.

You're concerned that 'everyone' could see what she did in her spare time. If she had got a part in a mainstream movie with no porn in it at all, would you feel the same? Could you take a stab at answering the questions I posed earlier about School Employee Only bars and resorts?

No, because I am aggressively opposed to sensationalism for its own sake.

There are many things people do that are not illegal, but nevertheless should not be done in public, or in the public eye. What is so hard to understand about that? For example, why shouldn't people be allowed to masturbate in public, or defecate? It's merely personal behavior with no victims, right?
If you agree, there's something wrong with you, because you have no boundaries. If you disagree, then you have a line, and we only disagree on where that line should be drawn. As such, phrases like "moral bullying" are just alarmist outrage to a normal response to this situation. At least, not without expecting a charge of 'immoral bullying' to be used as well.

 

[Dorian Gray]

How so? In porn everyone gets tested regularly. Seems like that would be a good lesson to share.

For the record I've always been outraged by businesses (or schools) regulating what their employees do on their own time. Bunch of vile fascists if you ask me.

Based on your tree removal thread, you don't care what employees do on the clock, either.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Uh, yeah... AIDS outbreak in porn in 2009:


And again in 2010:

Testing doesn't prevent STDs.

Even factoring in the risk of HIV "porn star" still isn't in the top ten dangerous professions alongside taxi driving, pizza delivery and chainsawing trees. If the goal was really to prevent teachers modelling dangerous behaviour for students then they should sack any of them who cut down a tree. I can't see that happening.

It's puritanism pure and simple. The claim that they are trying to keep students safe is sheer pretence.

I've got nothing against professional codes of conduct, but they should be explicit and based on actual risks to the public not on religious hangups. There are very good reasons not to want alcoholic doctors or politicians addicted to gambling, but I don't see the similarly good reasons not to want secretaries to have sex in front of a camera.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Even factoring in the risk of HIV "porn star" still isn't in the top ten dangerous professions alongside taxi driving, pizza delivery and chainsawing trees. If the goal was really to prevent teachers modelling dangerous behaviour for students then they should sack any of them who cut down a tree. I can't see that happening.

It's puritanism pure and simple. The claim that they are trying to keep students safe is sheer pretence.

I've got nothing against professional codes of conduct, but they should be explicit and based on actual risks to the public not on religious hangups. There are very good reasons not to want alcoholic doctors or politicians addicted to gambling, but I don't see the similarly good reasons not to want secretaries to have sex in front of a camera.

Why should your vision problem be used as a substitution for common sense?

 

[Dorian Gray]

It would also depend on how you define "accept".

http://www.safefamilies.org/sfStats.php
More than 70% of men from 18 to 34 visit a pornographic site in a typical month (comScore Media Metrix).

I would not expect the Canadian numbers to be drastically different - and I would think this means porn is pretty much "accepted".

Where do they visit the sites? In the privacy of their own homes. Taking a dump is accepted, but is getting paid for someone to film you taking a dump? Not for a school employee. It belongs in the bathroom. What is the age range of the school children in question? 13-18? So how is your statistic relevant in any way, other than the overlap at age 18, which makes it "okay" for them to purchase or view porn, but still doesn't make it okay for a porn actress to work in the office of the school?

 

[jiggeryqua]

Evidence?

The evidence for my opinion is that I hold it. You just read it, try to keep up. Do you mean 'Evidence?' for my tentative suggestion that people who have sex for a living might be better placed to talk about sex than the biology teacher I mentioned who made a very poor job of it, and biologists generally, who may or may not have an interest in or experience of sex but will probably approach the teaching of it from a 'clinical' perspective, while their students will probably be approaching it from a very different perspective? There is certainly a need for education to include an understanding of the biology of sex, but there's a lot more to be learned too.

No, because I am aggressively opposed to sensationalism for its own sake.

And ethically opposed to addressing entirely unsensationalist questions that might disrupt your fimly fixed opinions?

There are many things people do that are not illegal, but nevertheless should not be done in public, or in the public eye. What is so hard to understand about that? For example, why shouldn't people be allowed to masturbate in public, or defecate? It's merely personal behavior with no victims, right?

I'm sorry, I'm ethically opposed to sensationalism for its own sake. The porn in the OP, by the way, wasn't made or shown 'in public'. A female employee is being sanctioned for undertaking legal activity in private in her own time.

If you agree, there's something wrong with you,

Let me just clarify - by 'agree' in that context, you meant 'disagree with me'? If I disagree with you, there's something wrong with me? Because there's nothing wrong with you, you checked, I'm sure. Yup, you're still you and of course you're normal, so people who hold different views to your norm are 'wrong'. How simple everything must seem to you. Saturday night, eh...

As such, phrases like "moral bullying" are just alarmist outrage to a normal response to this situation. At least, not without expecting a charge of 'immoral bullying' to be used as well.

Yes, I'm failing to grasp that you are 'normal' and I, by disagreeing with you, am 'deviant'. Can you explain 'immoral bullying', by the way? I would have thought 'amoral' was the word you wanted, although neither seems as appropriate as you seem to think.